'Miserable, laborious, and short': The lives of animals

AuthorPretorius, D.M.
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i4a4
Published date12 December 2022
Date12 December 2022
Citation(2022) 139 SALJ 791
Pages791-836
791
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i4a4
‘MISERABLE, LABORIOUS, AND SHORT’:
THE LIV ES OF ANIMALS
D M PRETORIUS
Partner, Bowmans
Animal welfare legi slation in South Afr ica is de cient, espec ially in relation to far m
animals reared for i ngestion by human b eings. That bein g so, this article an alyses
aspects of pu blic internati onal law, administrative l aw, constitutional la w and
interpretat ion of statutes tha t may contribute t owards aording more l egal protection
to such animals. An o verview of re cent case law hi ghlights that the Con stitutional
Court has ma ndated a shift away fro m the traditional lai ssez-faire legal attitude t o
human use of anima ls towards one that requires enha nced protection of their intere sts.
To that end, extensive legisl ative reform is ne cessary to rec tify the dec iencies of th e
present system.
Anim al welfare legis lation – anima ls as bearers of ri ghts – legislat ive reform
‘God knew noth ing of thi s back then on the si xth morn ing, when He
still believed that everyth ing was just perfect. But eventual ly it must have
dawned on Hi m — like most beh avioura l scientist s He was probably a bit
slow on the uptake — that what He had ac tual ly created wa s a factor y for
the manuf acture of suerin g.’
(Peter Høeg T he Woman and The Ape (19 96) 80 .)
I IN TRODUC TION
In modern ti mes the meat production industr y has expanded to sta ggering
proportions. G lobally, in 2018 an estimated 69 bil lion chickens, 1.5 billion
pigs, 656 million tu rkeys, 574 mill ion sheep, 479 million goats and 302
million cattle were slaughtered for hum an consumption.1 In South Afr ica,
the same fate befalls some 3.5 million cattle, 3 m ill ion pigs, 7 mi llion
sheep and goats, and 950 mil lion chickens an nually.2
By its very nature, the meat industry involves cruelty to a nima ls.
Animals are reared and ki lled in a manner, and in quantities, that cannot
but leave one with a sense of disquiet. Yet, it is generally taken for granted
that human beings are entitled to treat animals in th is manner. Such
entitlement is gener ally ex pressed in leg al term s (anima ls are regarded as
BA LLB (Stellenbosch) BA ( Hons) LLM (SA) PhD ( Witwatersrand).
1 https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#number-of-animals-slaughtered; ht tp s://
faunalytics.or g/global-animal-slaughte r-statistics- and-cha rts-2020-upd ate/; and ht t p s ://
www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this-is-how-many-animals-we-
eat-each-year/, both accessed on 20 November 2021; Henry Mance How to Love
Animals in a Human -Shaped World (2021) 52.
2 Department of Agr iculture, Land Refor m and Rura l Development Abstract
of Agricultural Statistics (2020) 56– 62; https://www.world-grain.com/articles/12371-
meat-consumption-r ising-in-south-afric a, accessed on 20 August 2021.
(2022) 139 SALJ 791
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
792 (2022) 139 TH E SOUTH AFRICA N LAW JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i4a4
the property of human beings, who may dea l with their property as they
please), in moral-cum-relig ious terms, or in hierarchical terms (humans
are viewed as biologically superior to animals).
Against this background, th is article explores aspects of public law
relevant to the protect ion of domesticated anima ls bred and slaughtered for
human consumption.3 The article com mences with a brief conside ration
of the sentience of animals a nd the morality of breeding anim als for the
purpose of killi ng and eati ng them. Then follows an exploration of the
current legal status of animals, and of the protection accorded to livestock
under South Af rican law and public international law, with particular
reference to the Terrestr ial An imal Hea lth Code. I shal l high light dec iencies
in the system of leg al regu lation of the hum an treatment of livestock.
I shall proceed to demonstrate that principles of public inter national law,
admin istrat ive law and statutory inter pretation can assist in addressing
some of these fai lings. Final ly, the focus will shif t to the environ mental
rights pr ovisions i n the Constitution of the Republic of South A frica, 1996.
On the face of it, these provisions do not sig nicantly enhance protection
for anima ls. Nevertheless, an over view of post-1996 case law will show th at
there has been a g radual positive shift in judicial attitudes towards an imals
generally. That notwithstanding, substantial stat utory reform remains
necessar y to remediate the status quo pertaining to livestock. To that end,
I shall conclude t he article by advancing a fe w high-level proposals a imed at
giving livestock more legal protection against human cruelt y.
II THE SENTIENCE OF ANIMALS
Consideration of the moral and legal issues raised by huma n beings’ treat-
ment of animals should proceed from the recognition that many species of
animals are sentient beings, a nd that sentience is a character istic common
to most living beings (i ncluding Homo sapiens). Historical ly, it was not
always understood that an imal s are sentient beings. ‘Animals are like
robots: they can not reason or feel pain’, René Descartes (1596–1650)
supposedly sa id. By contrast, the veterina rian Wi lliam Youatt wrote as
long ago as 1839 that an imals demonstrate sagacit y, memory and reason;
‘they also have imagination and the mora l qualit ies of courage, f riendsh ip
and loyalty’.4 Nowadays scientists generally accept that animals such as
3 For the sake of brevit y, I shall use the compendious term ‘live stock’ to refer
to these an imal s. I do so mind ful of the ex planat ion by Philip J Sampson Animal
Ethics and the Nonconformist Conscience (2018) 14 of the manner in which the
imperson al term ‘livesto ck’ (with its connotat ion of business asset s) has faci litated
the commodication of the se animals ‘from livi ng creatures into pa ckages in the
fr eez er’.
4 Ian J H Duncan ‘The ch angin g concept of ani mal sent ience’ (2006) 100
Applied Animal Be haviour Sci ence 11 at 12.
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
‘MISER ABLE, LABOR IOUS, AND SHORT’: THE LI VES OF ANIMA LS 793
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v139/i4a4
dogs, pigs, cattle, horses, goats, wild mammals and birds are all sentient
to a greater or lesser extent. Studies of amphibians, repti les, sh and
crustaceans indicate that they, too, have a degree of sentience.5 ‘Many,
if not all, anima ls have deep, rich, and complex emotional l ives. … It is
not just the elephants, whales, dolph ins and apes … that make news about
their cognitive, social and emotional lives. The list a lso includes a ll types
of birds, mammal s, insects, and sh species.’6 Some animals demonstrate
empathy for each other, for other species, and even for huma ns.7
Anim als’ sentience mea ns that they feel plea sure and pai n, and have desi res
simil ar to those of hum ans for food and water, shelter, companionsh ip,
freedom of movement, and avoidance of pain. They have the capacity
to experience positive feeling s such as happiness as well as negative states
such as physical and psychological pa in and suer ing in ways similar to
that exper ienced by humans.8 Science increa singly recognises animals’
cognitive abi lity to comprehend the pain they feel. An imals consciously,
and with an xiety, appreciate the gravit y of their situation when they are
being neglected or abused or when they await their slaughter.9 These
character istics of animals, including livestock, must be considered when
we assess the propr iety and adequacy of the ma nner in which the law
regulates the meat industry.
III THE MORA LITY OF BRE EDING ANIMALS TO KILL AND
EAT T HE M
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) said that, when wondering who should be
given moral consideration, the question is not ‘Can they rea son?’ nor ‘Can
they talk?’ but ‘Can they suer?10 Some polities have beg un to pay heed
to Bentham’s preferred question. Scientic recognition of the sentience
5 Yuval Noa h Harari Homo Deus: A B rief Histor y of Tomorrow (2016 ) 97–10 2
and 142–6; Jane Kotzmann ‘Re cognisi ng the sentience of anim als in law :
A justica tion and fr amework for Australia n States a nd Territories’ (202 0) 42
Sydney L R 281 at 286; Jan Hoole ‘Here’s what the science say s about ani mal
sentience’ The Conversation 24 November 2017; Jon Ungoed-Thomas ‘Fa rmed
sh feel pain, stress a nd anxie ty and must be kille d humanely, globa l regulator
accepts’ The Guardi an 8 October 2022.
6 Micha el Ray Harris ‘A rig ht of ethical consid eration for non-huma n animals’
(2021) 27 Hastings Env LJ 71 at 98.
7 Simon Worra ll ‘Yes, animal s think and feel’ Na tional Geographic 15 July 2015;
Yuval Noah Hara ri 21 Lessons for t he 21st Century (2018) 187–8 and 200.
8 Kotzmann op cit not e 5 at 282 and 285 –6. Also see Jane Kotzmann & Nick
Pendergrast ‘Animal r ights: Ti me to star t unpackin g what rig hts and for whom’
(2019) 46 Mitchell Hamline L R 157 at 197.
9 Clare Pr ober ‘The pragmat ic justications for ex tending addit ional statutor y
protection to a nimals’ (2020) 53 Su olk Univ LR 1 at 6 –7.
10 See Sampson op cit note 3 at 32–3; Harr is op cit note 6 at 84–5; Thoma s G
Kelch ‘A short histor y of (mostly) western ani mal law: Pa rt II’ (2013) 19 Animal
LR 347 at 354.
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT